The Revisional Jurisdiction Of The National Commission Is Limited And Can Be Exercised Only In Specific Circumstances :NCDRC

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainants were persuaded by promises made by a representative of the Country Vacations/club to sign up for agency membership for Rs. 86,000. They paid Rs. 71,000 through debit card transactions and handed Rs. 15,000 in cash to the representative. However, they later discovered that they wouldn't receive a membership card as promised. Instead, they were informed of an extra, undisclosed fee of Rs. 5,000 for membership details, which was not mentioned initially. The complainants paid this amount in cash to the club but only received acknowledgment for Rs. 71,000 instead of the agreed Rs. 86,000. The club then informed them of a mandatory yearly administrative charge of Rs. 10,500, regardless of facility usage, and offered benefits including a holiday package. Despite the complainant's efforts to use the holiday services, they were denied and requested a refund for the membership, which was unsuccessful. A legal notice sent was also ignored. Feeling dissatisfied with the club's poor service and unfair practices, the complainants filed a consumer complaint seeking a refund of Rs. 86,000 and Rs. 5,000 with 18% interest, compensation for mental distress, and legal costs before the District Commission. The District Commission allowed the complaint but the opposite party/club appealed to the State Commission but the complaint was again dismissed. The present complaint is a revision petition by the opposite party against the order of the State Commission. The complainants have now challenged the revisional jurisdiction of the Commission.

Contentions of the Opposite Party

The club acknowledged that the complainants entered into an agreement for Rs. 86,000 and paid Rs. 71,000 in three transactions, contrary to the alleged Rs. 86,000. They highlighted that according to Clause 10 of the agreement, an annual charge of Rs. 10,500 excluding taxes is mandated, payable in advance each year, regardless of facility usage. The club argued that Clause 26 of the agreement allows the complainants a 10-day cool-off period from the agreement signing date, during which they can cancel the agreement and receive a refund, minus a deduction of Rs. 3,800. After this period, the membership fee becomes non-refundable under any circumstances. It was argued that the complainant failed to fulfill the obligation of paying the Annual Maintenance Charges as outlined in Clause 10 of the agreement, thereby rendering them ineligible to avail the associated benefits.The club denied the remaining allegations, asserting their falsehood. They stated that there is no deficiency in their service and requested the dismissal of the complaint.

Observations by the Commission

The Commission regarding the jurisdictional challenge, referred to the ruling in the case of Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Anr wherein the National Commission ruled that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act is very limited and it should only be exercised in specific circumstances outlined in the provision, such as when the State Commission has acted beyond its legal authority, failed to exercise its rightful jurisdiction, or acted unlawfully or with significant irregularity. Additionally the Commission also cited the case of Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold RushSales and Services Ltd., wherein the Supreme Court held that National Commission cannot interfere with the concurrent findings made by the District Forum and the State Commission unless there are substantial grounds to do so. In the present case, the National Commission does not have adequate jurisdiction to admit the revision petition.

The commission did not find any merit in the petition and upheld the order by the state commission.

Case Title: Country Vacations Vs. Sooba Singh

Case Number: R.P. No. 1084/2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order